Free Capitalist’s Techdirt Profile

About Free Capitalist

20 Year Tech Industrialist. Relatively anonymous to protect my first amendment rights and to maintain the dichotomy between my personal life and views, and my professional engagements with high profile customers and former employers.

from the everything-as-a-service dept

In my experience, the keystone to deploying useful application performance monitoring is to first define and build a hierarchical model of the target application as a service. We have long left a world of stand alone servers and atomic applications, and good performance monitoring solutions should be designed from the ground up to account for each technology involved in the application's delivery.

Naturally the scope of data and events involved in monitoring a modern application's performance as a service can quickly become unwieldy, with information being collated and (hopefully) aggregated from a large number of distinct technologies. To further add to the complexity, the software systems used to target and extract data will also vary from technology to technology. While one might choose to license a single vendor's "monolithic framework" instead of programming solutions internally, the vendor's code to gather data from a router will be distinct from the code used to gather storage information, and so on. Contrary to what marketing claims may be made, there is no "magic button" in any monitoring product that will sort out the relevance of data coming from a subsystem as it relates to an application as it is implemented in the environment.

Defining a common named hierarchy of the application's involved technology upfront enables engineers to systematically "tag" relevant data and events coming from a multitude of sources and correlate them to the appropriate application service (or in some cases... multiple applications). Correlation is the key to all-inclusive monitoring, as information without context is useless.

If the company has not already started using named hierarchies elsewhere in monitoring, it might be a good ideas to develop a basic hierarchical naming standard in the open and let other parties who will (or should) be using the standard provide input to the project. Once an environment starts successfully treating and monitoring one application as a service, there will be a drive from all application owners to do the same for them.

Free Capitalist’s Comments

Chris I know you will absolutely be right if the search results on CNN ever change.

Even with the on-going stream of opposition, this is still not a "story" to be followed by the mass media, and therefore is unknown to a great portion of the population. For them, and for congress, having most of the country be aware of what's actually in this bill is "bad for business". As are civil protections.

Appointments in the last little while have been much more business oriented, realizing that they need to move forward and re-level the playing field in all sorts of areas.

If by "re-level the playing field" you mean trying to return to the days when talented independent artists had no avenue or palpable hope for making a sustainable income on their own, then you're probably on the right track. It will never happen, but I'll bet that's the objective, yes.

This is just another case of pissing down our backs and calling it rain. Or in this case, "transparency".

So what is the issue you're having with section 230 again? Is it that anonymous posters can get away with spouting patently false stuff like everyone else, or is it because you haven't figured out how to maintain anonymity and get called out every time you post your stuff here. 'Cause that would just be jealous.

Some of the points you make do have fairly broad premises. For instance "convincing people to pay" implies that nobody wants to pay at all, ever. This certainly isn't entirely true or the we'd see a staggering retraction rather than the slow economic growth we are seeing now.

Which leads me to remind you there are a lot of normal working people out there right now with smaller budgets and larger bills. My guess is over half of the country is literally doing more with less than they did 3 years ago.

Keep the disposition of consumers, and the ongoing money grabs by the "entitled" few, in mind when lamenting the drop in ticket prices and other market indications in 'elective' markets such as entertainment.

There has always been a, relatively small, demographic that refuses to pay for anything. Deadbeats in this era, their numbers may be increasing some due to the ease of "infringement", make a larger impression today owing to the fact that they can easily grab entire catalogs of work in a short time. Even still there is a big difference between a drop in sales, and a void of sales.

Also, in my experience the people least willing to pay for anything have in general been the most wealthy. Keep this in mind when 'assessments' of the situation come from fabulously wealthy executives. We always see what we see inside ourselves.

So, to block all Wikileaks sourced content, they would need to do something like maintain a local database of all Wikileaks content and do real-time session analysis comparing text blocks over multiple packets to the content database.

The net result (no pun intended), is government employees will have very slow or disconnect prone Internet access. Personally I like the idea of keeping government off the Internet, but I'm not sure that is their intent...

Sure they can block all sites known to have posted Wikileaks data in the past, like the NY Times and the Washington Post. But this does nothing to prevent access to the content from new sources which are popping up everywhere.

Not so sure he will be fired. The operation seems like a shakedown of the remedies spelled out in COICA, which, if passed, would give them the legal authority to seize domain names based on industry mis-accusation.

A little premature and without jurisdiction, sure, but Operation In our Sites is just a sneak peek of the upcoming drama and sitcom season on CSPAN.